Re: Cgroups "pids" controller does not update "pids.current" count immediately

[Ivan Zahariev]

Hello,


On 15.6.2018 Ð. 22:07 Ñ., Tejun Heo wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 08:40:02PM +0300, Ivan Zahariev wrote:
> > The lazy pids accounting + modern fast CPUs makes the "pids.current"
> > metric practically unusable for resource limiting in our case. For a
> > test, when we started and ended one single process very quickly, we
> > saw "pids.current" equal up to 185 (while the correct value at all
> > time is either 0 or 1). If we want that a "cgroup" can spawn maximum
> > 50 processes, we should use some high value like 300 for "pids.max",
> > in order to compensate the pids uncharge lag (and this depends on
> > the speed of the CPU and how busy the system is).
> Yeah, that actually makes a lot of sense.  We can't keep everything
> synchronous for obvious performance reasons but we definitely can wait
> for RCU grace period before failing.  Forking might become a bit
> slower while pids are draining but shouldn't fail and that shouldn't
> incur any performance overhead in normal conditions when pids aren't
> constrained.

I lack expertise to comment on this. As a system administrator, I can 
only remind that nowadays machines with 80+ CPU cores are something 
usual. I don't know how the RCU grace period scales with an increasing 
number of CPUs.

If you develop a patch for this, we can try it in production and give 
you feedback. Just send me an email notification.

Thank you for your time and attention!

--
Ivan